Nintendo today announced first-week sales of 400,000 Wii U systems in North America, falling short of the mark set by the first Wii, but surpassing early sales of previous high-definition systems.

American corporate president Reggie Fils-Aime told CNet sales of the new system have been limited only by Nintendo's ability to get product to stores. "Retailers are also doing their best to get the product to store shelves, but as soon as product hits retail, they're selling out immediately," Fils-Aime said, gelling with reports from retailers like GameStop that explicitly noted in Black Friday ads that they had no hardware stock to sell.

The original Wii sold over 600,000 units in the Americas in the eight days following its November 2006 launch, which also overlapped with Black Friday. Indeed, the Wii was nearly impossible to find on store shelves for months following launch, selling millions of systems in that time.

According to industry tracker NPD, the Xbox 360 sold 326,000 units in its first two weeks on sale in North America in 2005. The PlayStation 3 sold 197,000 in the last two weeks of November 2006, after launching at prices starting at $500.

Going back further, the PlayStation 2 sold through more than 500,000 units in its first day on sale in North America, Sony said at the time, becoming the dominant console of its generation. Sega's Dreamcast, on the other hand, sold 372,000 units in its first four days before quickly tapering off and ceasing production months later.

The Wii U sales contributed to over 1.2 million units of Nintendo hardware sold for the Thanksgiving week, including 300,000 Wii systems, 275,000 units of the original Nintendo DS line, and 250,000 3DS systems. The 3DS has now sold 6 million units worldwide, about 1 million more than the original DS had sold at the same point in its life cycle.

Kyle Orland
Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area. Emailkyle.orland@arstechnica.com//Twitter@KyleOrl

110 Reader Comments

I'm very interested to see how this all plays out. I think Nintendo is onto something with the Miiverse and once they get all the kinks worked out of the software (hopefully very soon), I think it will be a very compelling piece of hardware. I've really enjoyed Trine 2 and Nano Assault from the eShop, and Nintendo has two really great titles with Nintendoland and NSMBU. My daughter and wife are crazy about Nintendoland and Mario, and they are starting to get into Sonic Racing. It's not Wii Sports, where it was immediately apparent to everyone that Nintendo was going to print a lot of money with the Wii, but I think this launch is a lot more successful than you would gather from reading all the negativity that seems to permeate games journalism. The overall feeling I've gotten from talking to people that have played the Wii U is that they are genuinely excited about it. With Nintendo's new eShop policy of allowing indie devs a lot more freedom and a much friendlier cost structure, I think the Wii U could be a very good device to publish indie software. If there is one thing Nintendo has done a poor job of, it's actually explaining to people what makes this console different. Hopefully they get their marketing act together.

I'm curious to see what price points Microsoft and Sony aim for with their next consoles. If they build the holodeck that people want, I think they might price themselves out of the market, especially if Nintendo has major franchises and exclusives ready for the launch of the other consoles. All the online rage over CPU/GPU speculation probably won't matter to most of the people who purchase the console. Software will make or break Nintendo.

I have a hard time understanding the "wait for the ps4/xbox720" sentiment.. With that attitude you would never buy anything tech related - There is always something better just around the corner.

The issue is that Xbox 360 with Kinnect is potentially already as powerful and technologically impressive as the new Wii U with its tablet. If the Wii U does not outshine the old systems, how will it compete with their successors?

Isn't that what everyone said about the Wii?

And realistically, how much power does a system need? The biggest thing missing from the Wii was HD support. That was the big draw of the ps3 and xbox360. What will Sony or Microsoft offer that will be so great, it will crush the Wii U?

I want the new Mario, Zelda, Donkey Kong, and Metroid games. Some people get tired of rehashing IP but apparently I don't because I have loved playing every game in the series.

HD and something of a modern online experience were my major gripes from the original Wii.

The tablet is great, I love calling plays with it in Madden and playing that or Mario with the TV off. ZombiU looks like it makes good use of it. NintendoLand has a bunch of good uses for it. It's a gimmick as much as the DS was but that seems to be hanging around pretty well.

I have a hard time understanding the "wait for the ps4/xbox720" sentiment.. With that attitude you would never buy anything tech related - There is always something better just around the corner.

It's true, and what does future-proof really mean? If it means not being surpassed then consoles never stand a chance, if you really want to be cutting edge then you game on a PC, no question. If you want a system that will be supported for a long time, well each of the big three consoles have been supported for almost 7 years and counting, so no real concern there. I understand being on the fence, it's not for everyone.

I have a hard time understanding the "wait for the ps4/xbox720" sentiment.. With that attitude you would never buy anything tech related - There is always something better just around the corner.

The issue is that Xbox 360 with Kinnect is potentially already as powerful and technologically impressive as the new Wii U with its tablet. If the Wii U does not outshine the old systems, how will it compete with their successors?

Isn't that what everyone said about the Wii?

And realistically, how much power does a system need? The biggest thing missing from the Wii was HD support. That was the big draw of the ps3 and xbox360. What will Sony or Microsoft offer that will be so great, it will crush the Wii U?

Videophiles who are obsessed with image quality are probably already gaming on a high end PC. I do have a high end PC, and I game on my television, but every time I show my wife how cool the latest graphical whiz bangs are, she greets me with a 'meh' every time. But put in Nintendoland and Mario Chase and she'll laugh until her tits fall off.

So, to answer your question, it really depends. I think Nintendo has much more modern hardware this time around, and should be able to run ported software from the other consoles unless both MS and Sony shoot the moon, which is probably a stretch in an economy where people are tightening entertainment budgets. I think they'll do fine, because they've created a market for themselves that MS and Sony have a poor record of catering to. Whether or not they grab hardcore gamers back really depends on how well they succeed at convincing 3rd parties to develop games for them. I can't see Nintendo moneyhatting too many devs for exclusives, but making their console a destination for indie games would be a great consolation prize.

I can't see Nintendo moneyhatting too many devs for exclusives, but making their console a destination for indie games would be a great consolation prize.

I'd love to see them build back up their stable of AAA 2nd party development houses that they trust with their IP. Back in the N64 days, a new Rare title was practically as exciting as a new Nintendo title. These days, you get the sense that their development teams have been struggling to keep the pipeline filled by themselves, especially during transitions when they are developing for more than 2 systems. The fact that the Wii started tanking in 2011 probably had more to do with the AAA Nintendo titles slowing to a trickle than it did with people suddenly realizing the hardware wasn't very powerful.

If they can keep a steady stream of exclusive first and second party games coming out, plus have a system that's modern enough to handle slightly downgraded versions of multiplatform titles, I think they'll have a winner.

They sold 1.2 million hardware in one weekend. Why are they still losing money?

Strong yen, sales below expectations, 3DS price drop. That's all first half of the fiscal year, these sales obviously provide a bump, and they're forecasting a profit for the year. Their fiscal year ends in March, so they've got a nice while for Wii U sales to bring in some dough (Wii U sells at minor loss, but only takes 1 game sale per unit to turn a profit).

First, I must admit that I never understood the Wii and thought the interface Nintendo came up with was not good. The graphics hurt my eyes, the Wii wand was uncomfortable compared to modern controllers and they couldn't seem to offer anything other than variations on Mario (and the variations were rubbish compared to the original versions – at least IMO). So perhaps I am not objective enough but I think Nintendo is screwed.

The original Wii was released at a time where there weren't any tablets and phones that provided simple games like Temple Run or Angry Birds. The graphics of the Wii were weak but for simple kid games it didn't matter that much. The Wii was much cheaper than the PS3 or the XBOX and had this slightly more intuitive interface (it was clunky and not very precise but easy to use) that made it possible for anyone to play games. Plus the games were tuned so that anyone could play without much skill being required. Casual gamers finally had a system they could play on and people could relive their memories of great SNES games.

Now casual gamers are using phones and tablets - they don't need (or really care about) the Wii U. Nintendo could try to attract more of the hard core crowd but such folks are somewhat dismissive of Nintendo after the last two generations of consoles. And without the horsepower to really compete with the next-gen XBOX and PS4 (if early rumors are correct) it seems unlikely that the games will look as good on the Wii U. I don't see any sustainable market for the Wii U and expect this generation is going to be the end for Nintendo as a console maker. Definitely predicting a trajectory that is different than the Wii.

I can't see Nintendo moneyhatting too many devs for exclusives, but making their console a destination for indie games would be a great consolation prize.

I'd love to see them build back up their stable of AAA 2nd party development houses that they trust with their IP. Back in the N64 days, a new Rare title was practically as exciting as a new Nintendo title. These days, you get the sense that their development teams have been struggling to keep the pipeline filled by themselves, especially during transitions when they are developing for more than 2 systems. The fact that the Wii started tanking in 2011 probably had more to do with the AAA Nintendo titles slowing to a trickle than it did with people suddenly realizing the hardware wasn't very powerful.

If they can keep a steady stream of exclusive first and second party games coming out, plus have a system that's modern enough to handle slightly downgraded versions of multiplatform titles, I think they'll have a winner.

Shin'en, the developer of Nano Assault, seems like they would be perfect to make an F-Zero game, and I hope they get a shot at a Nintendo franchise at some point. Retro Studios is probably cooking up something really cool. A lot of the in house teams in Japan at Nintendo just finished 3DS games not that long ago, so they'll probably be cranking out a few Wii U titles soon as well. Not to mention Platinum games, which has two titles (Bayonetta 2 and The Wonderful 101) heading exclusively to Wii U in 2013. Nintendo will be fine, much to the chagrin of forum dwellers everywhere.

First, I must admit that I never understood the Wii and thought the interface Nintendo came up with was not good. The graphics hurt my eyes, the Wii wand was uncomfortable compared to modern controllers and they couldn't seem to offer anything other than variations on Mario (and the variations were rubbish compared to the original versions – at least IMO). So perhaps I am not objective enough but I think Nintendo is screwed.

The original Wii was released at a time where there weren't any tablets and phones that provided simple games like Temple Run or Angry Birds. The graphics of the Wii were weak but for simple kid games it didn't matter that much. The Wii was much cheaper than the PS3 or the XBOX and had this slightly more intuitive interface (it was clunky and not very precise but easy to use) that made it possible for anyone to play games. Plus the games were tuned so that anyone could play without much skill being required. Casual gamers finally had a system they could play on and people could relive their memories of great SNES games.

It sounds like you understood the Wii fine but just came to the wrong conclusion. Let me fix that for you:

Casual gamers finally had a system they could play on and people had fun.

Quote:

Now casual gamers are using phones and tablets - they don't need (or really care about) the Wii U.

Why do you predict this to be true when the phones and tablets don't have the games that made the Wii a success? Wii Sports, Mario Kart, Smash Bros, Mario Galaxy, and Mario Bros?

Quote:

Nintendo could try to attract more of the hard core crowd but such folks are somewhat dismissive of Nintendo after the last two generations of consoles.

The hardcore crowd didn't help Sony or Microsoft, I don't see why they would help Nintendo.

Quote:

And without the horsepower to really compete with the next-gen XBOX and PS4 (if early rumors are correct) it seems unlikely that the games will look as good on the Wii U. I don't see any sustainable market for the Wii U and expect this generation is going to be the end for Nintendo as a console maker. Definitely predicting a trajectory that is different than the Wii.

And, again, the games on the Wii didn't look nearly as good as the games on the XBox 360 or PS3 yet the Wii still outsold both consoles.

Why do you think adding more graphics to the NextBox and PS4 will change the balance of power this time?

Here's my prediction:Nintendo will make better games with the horsepower available to them. Imagine an Assassin's Creed and Metal Gear Solid styled game with Link (and obviously less gory!). Imagine a prettier Mario Galaxy with more monsters and more people on screen at once; or perhaps a Mario Galaxy style game where Peach is the main character. Perhaps Mario Kart with more interactive tracks (where players can reconfigure the tracks using in game walls, surfaces, etc) instead of a fixed layout.

With these better games, Nintendo will continue to outsell the AAA titles on the other platforms.

I don't see any sustainable market for the Wii U and expect this generation is going to be the end for Nintendo as a console maker. Definitely predicting a trajectory that is different than the Wii.

I think that's a tremendous overstatement. Nintendo survived the Gamecube, and it will almost certainly survive this thing as well. The company must have immensely deep pockets after the unprecedented success of the OG Wii.

That said, I don't know why Nintendo didn't try a little harder. Would it have been so difficult to add a Blu-Ray player so the console could act as a unified set-top box? Could the machine have been designed to support up to 4 tablet controllers? Could they have designed it in such a way that its first-party games look (somewhat) recognizably superior to anything on the PS3 or 360? It doesn't have to be prettier than the PS4, but it should be noticeably prettier than the 6-year old PS3. A system like that would have been really impressive. I'm not sure why they didn't bother.

I don't see any sustainable market for the Wii U and expect this generation is going to be the end for Nintendo as a console maker. Definitely predicting a trajectory that is different than the Wii.

I think that's a tremendous overstatement. Nintendo survived the Gamecube, and it will almost certainly survive this thing as well. The company must have immensely deep pockets after the unprecedented success of the OG Wii.

That said, I don't know why Nintendo didn't try a little harder. Would it have been so difficult to add a Blu-Ray player so the console could act as a unified set-top box? Could the machine have been designed to support up to 4 tablet controllers? Could they have designed it in such a way that it's first-party games look (somewhat) recognizably superior to anything on the PS3 or 360? A system like that would have been really impressive.

It has the hardware to play Blu-Ray but they said they didn't want to pay the licensing fee when people probably already had a dedicated Blu-Ray player. That makes me hopeful that they will sell an app in the eShop that enables it so I can remove a device from my living room.

4 tablets would have probably been too ambitious and too expensive. They haven't enabled 2 tablets yet but it sounds like there will be an FPS hit because the system will be rendering 3 discrete images.

First, I must admit that I never understood the Wii and thought the interface Nintendo came up with was not good. The graphics hurt my eyes, the Wii wand was uncomfortable compared to modern controllers and they couldn't seem to offer anything other than variations on Mario (and the variations were rubbish compared to the original versions – at least IMO). So perhaps I am not objective enough but I think Nintendo is screwed.

The original Wii was released at a time where there weren't any tablets and phones that provided simple games like Temple Run or Angry Birds. The graphics of the Wii were weak but for simple kid games it didn't matter that much. The Wii was much cheaper than the PS3 or the XBOX and had this slightly more intuitive interface (it was clunky and not very precise but easy to use) that made it possible for anyone to play games. Plus the games were tuned so that anyone could play without much skill being required. Casual gamers finally had a system they could play on and people could relive their memories of great SNES games.

Now casual gamers are using phones and tablets - they don't need (or really care about) the Wii U. Nintendo could try to attract more of the hard core crowd but such folks are somewhat dismissive of Nintendo after the last two generations of consoles. And without the horsepower to really compete with the next-gen XBOX and PS4 (if early rumors are correct) it seems unlikely that the games will look as good on the Wii U. I don't see any sustainable market for the Wii U and expect this generation is going to be the end for Nintendo as a console maker. Definitely predicting a trajectory that is different than the Wii.

It all depends on software and cost. With Windows 8 off to a slow start, and Microsofts tablet not selling well either, how much money will Microsoft be willing to sink into being price competitive? Something has to give, and it's either the price tag going up or the specs coming back down to earth a bit. Sony is in a similar place, as their stock has just hit junk status. Neither company has divisions where they can hide the losses of subsidizing their gaming hardware anymore. Microsoft probably can moreso than Sony, but not to the level in which they were willing to buy market share with in 2005.

When Microsoft and Sony launch their next hardware, the price of the hardware and the quality of the launch software will determine the trajectory of the industry. If the quality of the software isn't there, or the cost of the hardware is way too high, then Nintendo may be in the a good place to compete, especially if they have some of their IP ready to launch on Wii U.

Another question is software cost. More graphical effects and higher resolution graphics requires better quality art and higher game budgets. Will the market support it if game prices go up another $10? If Microsoft launches with a $400+ console and raises the price of games and their premium services, how many people outside of the hardest of hardcore gamers will jump on the bandwagon?

I don't see any sustainable market for the Wii U and expect this generation is going to be the end for Nintendo as a console maker. Definitely predicting a trajectory that is different than the Wii.

I think that's a tremendous overstatement. Nintendo survived the Gamecube, and it will almost certainly survive this thing as well. The company must have immensely deep pockets after the unprecedented success of the OG Wii.

That said, I don't know why Nintendo didn't try a little harder. Would it have been so difficult to add a Blu-Ray player so the console could act as a unified set-top box? Could the machine have been designed to support up to 4 tablet controllers? Could they have designed it in such a way that it's first-party games look (somewhat) recognizably superior to anything on the PS3 or 360? A system like that would have been really impressive.

It has the hardware to play Blu-Ray but they said they didn't want to pay the licensing fee when people probably already had a dedicated Blu-Ray player. That makes me hopeful that they will sell an app in the eShop that enables it so I can remove a device from my living room.

4 tablets would have probably been too ambitious and too expensive. They haven't enabled 2 tablets yet but it sounds like there will be an FPS hit because the system will be rendering 3 discrete images.

There is an FPS hit (30 FPS instead of 60 FPS) on 2 tablets due to multiplexing the signal. In theory, they could use the same method for 3 tablets (20 FPS each) and 4 tablets (15 FPS each), but obviously anything less than 30 isn't ideal.

I don't see any sustainable market for the Wii U and expect this generation is going to be the end for Nintendo as a console maker. Definitely predicting a trajectory that is different than the Wii.

I think that's a tremendous overstatement. Nintendo survived the Gamecube, and it will almost certainly survive this thing as well. The company must have immensely deep pockets after the unprecedented success of the OG Wii.

That said, I don't know why Nintendo didn't try a little harder. Would it have been so difficult to add a Blu-Ray player so the console could act as a unified set-top box? Could the machine have been designed to support up to 4 tablet controllers? Could they have designed it in such a way that it's first-party games look (somewhat) recognizably superior to anything on the PS3 or 360? A system like that would have been really impressive.

It has the hardware to play Blu-Ray but they said they didn't want to pay the licensing fee when people probably already had a dedicated Blu-Ray player. That makes me hopeful that they will sell an app in the eShop that enables it so I can remove a device from my living room.

4 tablets would have probably been too ambitious and too expensive. They haven't enabled 2 tablets yet but it sounds like there will be an FPS hit because the system will be rendering 3 discrete images.

There is an FPS hit (30 FPS instead of 60 FPS) on 2 tablets due to multiplexing the signal. In theory, they could use the same method for 3 tablets (20 FPS each) and 4 tablets (15 FPS each), but obviously anything less than 30 isn't ideal.

That's one of the reasons the Wii U should have had significantly more processing power. Processing power isn't just about pretty pixels. It also can empower gameplay.

I don't see any sustainable market for the Wii U and expect this generation is going to be the end for Nintendo as a console maker. Definitely predicting a trajectory that is different than the Wii.

I think that's a tremendous overstatement. Nintendo survived the Gamecube, and it will almost certainly survive this thing as well. The company must have immensely deep pockets after the unprecedented success of the OG Wii.

That said, I don't know why Nintendo didn't try a little harder. Would it have been so difficult to add a Blu-Ray player so the console could act as a unified set-top box? Could the machine have been designed to support up to 4 tablet controllers? Could they have designed it in such a way that it's first-party games look (somewhat) recognizably superior to anything on the PS3 or 360? A system like that would have been really impressive.

It has the hardware to play Blu-Ray but they said they didn't want to pay the licensing fee when people probably already had a dedicated Blu-Ray player. That makes me hopeful that they will sell an app in the eShop that enables it so I can remove a device from my living room.

4 tablets would have probably been too ambitious and too expensive. They haven't enabled 2 tablets yet but it sounds like there will be an FPS hit because the system will be rendering 3 discrete images.

There is an FPS hit (30 FPS instead of 60 FPS) on 2 tablets due to multiplexing the signal. In theory, they could use the same method for 3 tablets (20 FPS each) and 4 tablets (15 FPS each), but obviously anything less than 30 isn't ideal.

That's one of the reasons the Wii U should have had significantly more processing power. Processing power isn't just about pretty pixels. It also can empower gameplay.

It's already $350. At some point the better specs are a detriment because the system is too expensive.

First party games will sell Wii U's for quite a while and will probably be able to carry Nintendo all the way through it's generation to justify another Nintendo console after.

Sony has an equal, if not better, first party quality studios ready to support the next PlayStation. Sony may be in financial trouble, but their games division has a lot of potential. But they need to tread carefully in their design decisions for their next console. It can't be too expensive and it can't be overshadowed by the power of the next Xbox. As long as they find a decent balance of power, cost, and software they have a good chance of doing well. Add the possibility of Sony using it's Gaikai ownership to provide unique online services and things don't look too shady for their gaming future (as long as the rest of the company doesn't sink the ship first).

Microsoft has the advantage in the US being the most popular console. That is going to generate a lot of hype and buzz around the next console and will certainly give that console an initial sales boom - possibly the biggest ever. Microsoft's biggest challenge is software. They've sold off or killed nearly all of their internal studios for first party software. Microsoft will continue to dump that money that would otherwise be spent on internal development to snag exclusive content on multi-platform games and straight-up exclusive games for their console.

Microsoft's strongest feature is Xbox Live. It's the most well-rounded online service for gamer's out there... okay, well it's the best for serious online gamers and that all important 18-25 male demographic that constantly plays Madden and Call of Duty with all their Bros 50 hours a week... Personally I think Microsoft needs to reevaluate what the XBL programs actually gets you for that $60/yr. There's too much advertising on the dashboard of the console and in the marketplace and it's frustrating as a customer to pay for the service and still be force-fed ads everywhere you look on your console.... but enough ranting. XBL, like it or not, is a very important feature to a lot of gamers and will likely play a role in selling a lot of the new Xbox's.

Basically all 3 manufacturers are poised for a tough battle in the next round of the so-called "console wars." Tablets and new forms of media will surely push the manufacturers to find new ways to keep going as the cycle moves on. From this context it seems like a pretty fair fight.

I plan on getting a Wii U and a PS4. Though I do not plan on getting a generation 1 device for either. I am waiting for prices to drop, greatest hits to be available, hardware to be reconfigured, and bundles to be released with games and additional peripherals.

I had a lot of problems with the Xbox 360, going through 3 warranty repairs all from different malfunctioning parts (only 1 of them RROD'd). I am disappointed in the XBL subscription options and the "features" and "services" Microsoft includes. I am disappointed with the high cost of hard drive upgrades; especially compared to the competition as well as the limited licensing they did for 3rd party peripherals. I am not impressed with Kinect from a gaming standpoint. Microsoft has a lot to prove before I opt-in to buy another console from them. For now, my Microsoft gaming machine is my Windows PC.

I don't see any sustainable market for the Wii U and expect this generation is going to be the end for Nintendo as a console maker. Definitely predicting a trajectory that is different than the Wii.

I think that's a tremendous overstatement. Nintendo survived the Gamecube, and it will almost certainly survive this thing as well. The company must have immensely deep pockets after the unprecedented success of the OG Wii.

That said, I don't know why Nintendo didn't try a little harder. Would it have been so difficult to add a Blu-Ray player so the console could act as a unified set-top box? Could the machine have been designed to support up to 4 tablet controllers? Could they have designed it in such a way that it's first-party games look (somewhat) recognizably superior to anything on the PS3 or 360? A system like that would have been really impressive.

It has the hardware to play Blu-Ray but they said they didn't want to pay the licensing fee when people probably already had a dedicated Blu-Ray player. That makes me hopeful that they will sell an app in the eShop that enables it so I can remove a device from my living room.

4 tablets would have probably been too ambitious and too expensive. They haven't enabled 2 tablets yet but it sounds like there will be an FPS hit because the system will be rendering 3 discrete images.

There is an FPS hit (30 FPS instead of 60 FPS) on 2 tablets due to multiplexing the signal. In theory, they could use the same method for 3 tablets (20 FPS each) and 4 tablets (15 FPS each), but obviously anything less than 30 isn't ideal.

That's one of the reasons the Wii U should have had significantly more processing power. Processing power isn't just about pretty pixels. It also can empower gameplay.

While processing power does have an impact in displaying using multiple tablets, the point of my response was the fact that it was not the bottleneck - its the wireless bandwidth. The 2 tablet feature that will be enabled works by sending alternating signals to the 2 tablets (which results in 30 FPS as opposed to 60 FPS). The same method can be used with 3 or 4 tablets, but results in 20 FPS and 15 FPS respectively. Nintendo would have to add more hardware relating to the wireless signal first before processing considerations are even considered for better multiple tablet support.

I don't see any sustainable market for the Wii U and expect this generation is going to be the end for Nintendo as a console maker. Definitely predicting a trajectory that is different than the Wii.

I think that's a tremendous overstatement. Nintendo survived the Gamecube, and it will almost certainly survive this thing as well. The company must have immensely deep pockets after the unprecedented success of the OG Wii.

That said, I don't know why Nintendo didn't try a little harder. Would it have been so difficult to add a Blu-Ray player so the console could act as a unified set-top box? Could the machine have been designed to support up to 4 tablet controllers? Could they have designed it in such a way that it's first-party games look (somewhat) recognizably superior to anything on the PS3 or 360? A system like that would have been really impressive.

It has the hardware to play Blu-Ray but they said they didn't want to pay the licensing fee when people probably already had a dedicated Blu-Ray player. That makes me hopeful that they will sell an app in the eShop that enables it so I can remove a device from my living room.

4 tablets would have probably been too ambitious and too expensive. They haven't enabled 2 tablets yet but it sounds like there will be an FPS hit because the system will be rendering 3 discrete images.

There is an FPS hit (30 FPS instead of 60 FPS) on 2 tablets due to multiplexing the signal. In theory, they could use the same method for 3 tablets (20 FPS each) and 4 tablets (15 FPS each), but obviously anything less than 30 isn't ideal.

That's one of the reasons the Wii U should have had significantly more processing power. Processing power isn't just about pretty pixels. It also can empower gameplay.

While processing power does have an impact in displaying using multiple tablets, the point of my response was the fact that it was not the bottleneck - its the wireless bandwidth. The 2 tablet feature that will be enabled works by sending alternating signals to the 2 tablets (which results in 30 FPS as opposed to 60 FPS). The same method can be used with 3 or 4 tablets, but results in 20 FPS and 15 FPS respectively. Nintendo would have to add more hardware relating to the wireless signal first before processing considerations are even considered for better multiple tablet support.

Could the problem be solved by using (optional) wired controllers? I mean, you could use the wireless interface for single player games, but then use wired attachments to support the use of up to 4 tablets per Wii U?

I don't see any sustainable market for the Wii U and expect this generation is going to be the end for Nintendo as a console maker. Definitely predicting a trajectory that is different than the Wii.

I think that's a tremendous overstatement. Nintendo survived the Gamecube, and it will almost certainly survive this thing as well. The company must have immensely deep pockets after the unprecedented success of the OG Wii.

That said, I don't know why Nintendo didn't try a little harder. Would it have been so difficult to add a Blu-Ray player so the console could act as a unified set-top box? Could the machine have been designed to support up to 4 tablet controllers? Could they have designed it in such a way that it's first-party games look (somewhat) recognizably superior to anything on the PS3 or 360? A system like that would have been really impressive.

It has the hardware to play Blu-Ray but they said they didn't want to pay the licensing fee when people probably already had a dedicated Blu-Ray player. That makes me hopeful that they will sell an app in the eShop that enables it so I can remove a device from my living room.

4 tablets would have probably been too ambitious and too expensive. They haven't enabled 2 tablets yet but it sounds like there will be an FPS hit because the system will be rendering 3 discrete images.

There is an FPS hit (30 FPS instead of 60 FPS) on 2 tablets due to multiplexing the signal. In theory, they could use the same method for 3 tablets (20 FPS each) and 4 tablets (15 FPS each), but obviously anything less than 30 isn't ideal.

That's one of the reasons the Wii U should have had significantly more processing power. Processing power isn't just about pretty pixels. It also can empower gameplay.

It doesn't require more processing power per se. The gamepads run on a wireless signal tuned specifically for them. If you add more gamepads, the console doesn't have the bandwidth overhead to make the games run at higher framerates on the pads. If they added more wireless chips to the console, they could accomodate it, but then you're running into increased costs and I don't think it would have been feasible to reach the price point that Nintendo wanted to. There are sacrifices to be made when making a games console. Nintendo probably could have built a graphics pushing monster had they abandoned the costs associated with reasearch and development on the game pad. They went the route they did because building a ludicrously powerful console has historically been a pretty poor garauntor of financial and sales success. Innovative gameplay and software have been.

First, I must admit that I never understood the Wii and thought the interface Nintendo came up with was not good. The graphics hurt my eyes, the Wii wand was uncomfortable compared to modern controllers and they couldn't seem to offer anything other than variations on Mario (and the variations were rubbish compared to the original versions – at least IMO). So perhaps I am not objective enough but I think Nintendo is screwed.

Basically... you're not a Wii fan, so you don't think Wii U will do well. If you can't understand why the Wii was so successful, then it's hard to see where your opinion has merit.

I'm not a fan of PS3/Xbox 360, in my opinion they play second fiddle to gaming on a PC. I understand why they've done pretty well, they offer some fun games and an experience that's in line with traditional console gaming, and it's more approachable than PC gaming for many people.

If you realize you're not objective, then why pile on? Your prediction is baseless.

It's true, and what does future-proof really mean? If it means not being surpassed then consoles never stand a chance, if you really want to be cutting edge then you game on a PC, no question. If you want a system that will be supported for a long time, well each of the big three consoles have been supported for almost 7 years and counting, so no real concern there. I understand being on the fence, it's not for everyone.

Or it means that if I want ONE console for the next 5-7 years I'd like to see which one lines up best with my wants.

It's true, and what does future-proof really mean? If it means not being surpassed then consoles never stand a chance, if you really want to be cutting edge then you game on a PC, no question. If you want a system that will be supported for a long time, well each of the big three consoles have been supported for almost 7 years and counting, so no real concern there. I understand being on the fence, it's not for everyone.

Or it means that if I want ONE console for the next 5-7 years I'd like to see which one lines up best with my wants.

You've described the basic, common act of shopping, which is unrelated to my comment about the term 'future-proof'. Obviously anyone who plans on only one console in the next 5-7 is more likely to wait for others to come out before deciding which to buy.

They sold 1.2 million hardware in one weekend. Why are they still losing money?

They sold 1.2 million pieces of hardware -at a loss- in one weekend.

Though if they sell a copy of New Super Mario Bros Wii U per console...

Quote:

Now casual gamers are using phones and tablets - they don't need (or really care about) the Wii U. Nintendo could try to attract more of the hard core crowd but such folks are somewhat dismissive of Nintendo after the last two generations of consoles. And without the horsepower to really compete with the next-gen XBOX and PS4 (if early rumors are correct) it seems unlikely that the games will look as good on the Wii U. I don't see any sustainable market for the Wii U and expect this generation is going to be the end for Nintendo as a console maker. Definitely predicting a trajectory that is different than the Wii.

An iPad costs more than a Wii U.

The Wii U lets you play Mario, probably the best recieved franchise in existence.

Not looking as good is irrelevant. Period. Why? Because people just don't care that much. If people cared about graphics, they'd play on the PC.

Consoles are boxes for playing games. The Wii U actually differentiates itself from the PC; you can play games on it you couldn't play without its unique interface. Any Wii U game that actually makes proper use of the interface is by necessity a Wii U exclusive.

Also, let's remember: the XBox 360 and PS3 both were more powerful than the Wii, yet did not sell as well. This generation, the new XBox and PS4 are coming out -two years- after the Nintendo until, will NOT present higher resolution graphics (merely better ones), and in all probability will cost at least $100 more than the Wii U does, without two years of games that are out on the Wii U when they're launched.

That's going to be pretty rough. And during the meantime, PC gaming will continue to advance.

Let's face it: while people may call these interfaces a gimmick, it is all that the console industry has left. If you can deliver the experience on the PC, why not do exactly that?

Quote:

Microsoft has the advantage in the US being the most popular console.

Last I checked, the Wii still has the largest install base in the US of any 7th generation console. You are probably remembering that the XBox outsold the Wii in 2011 and 2012. It did! But when you're eight digits of sales behind, that doesn't mean you have a bigger install base.

Quote:

They went the route they did because building a ludicrously powerful console has historically been a pretty poor garauntor of financial and sales success.

In fact, I believe in the last three generations, the console that had the best specs lost.

5th generation - N64 had the best specs, lost to the PS6th generation - Gamecube had the best specs, lost to the PS27th generation - PS3 had the best specs, lost to the Wii

Here in Milwaukee I saw a number of Wii U's on the shelf on Black Friday. In fact, I didn't see a single one in anyone's carts. I was actually watching to see how many people were buying them just out of curiosity. I was surprised to see any on the shelves at all, let alone multiple units on the shelf. And this was true at both the Target and Walmart stores I went in. Both places had units in stock. I went to Mayfair Mall later in the afternoon and the Gamestop store there had a sign out front proclaiming to still have Wii U's in stock. Old Navy had a demo unit set up to go along with their Mario Bros. promo they had going Thursday night and Friday. There was a line of people 4 store-lengths long waiting to make their purchases, but only about 3 people waiting to try out the Wii U. At the mall, Nintendo had a Wii U booth setup with multiple units for people to try several different games. Again, no line to speak of to try it out. The reps they had there had to actively recuit people to come over and try it out.

Here in Milwaukee, at least, it seems people aren't entirely sold on this console that mostly offers more of the same experience as the Wii only with a fancy/expensive new controller and improved graphics that most casual gamers don't care about all that much anyway. Most of the people I've spoken with here that I'd consider "casual gamers" asked me what was new on the Wii U and their responses have almost universally been "Big woop. How much does it cost? Yeah, I'm not spending that much just to have a big new controller thing." They don't get the appeal, and frankly, neither do I. At least not yet.

Other than the nifty screen-switching feature, I'm not seeing anything yet that makes the extra screen on the controller a killer app. Time, and more software, may change that, but I'm not seeing the appeal at the moment unless you're a Mario fanatic.

First, I must admit that I never understood the Wii and thought the interface Nintendo came up with was not good. The graphics hurt my eyes, the Wii wand was uncomfortable compared to modern controllers and they couldn't seem to offer anything other than variations on Mario (and the variations were rubbish compared to the original versions – at least IMO). So perhaps I am not objective enough but I think Nintendo is screwed.

The original Wii was released at a time where there weren't any tablets and phones that provided simple games like Temple Run or Angry Birds. The graphics of the Wii were weak but for simple kid games it didn't matter that much. The Wii was much cheaper than the PS3 or the XBOX and had this slightly more intuitive interface (it was clunky and not very precise but easy to use) that made it possible for anyone to play games. Plus the games were tuned so that anyone could play without much skill being required. Casual gamers finally had a system they could play on and people could relive their memories of great SNES games.

Now casual gamers are using phones and tablets - they don't need (or really care about) the Wii U. Nintendo could try to attract more of the hard core crowd but such folks are somewhat dismissive of Nintendo after the last two generations of consoles. And without the horsepower to really compete with the next-gen XBOX and PS4 (if early rumors are correct) it seems unlikely that the games will look as good on the Wii U. I don't see any sustainable market for the Wii U and expect this generation is going to be the end for Nintendo as a console maker. Definitely predicting a trajectory that is different than the Wii.

Casual gamers want to play in groups even more than hardcore gamers do. Just watch my niece and nephew fight over the iPad, until my brother-in-law tells them to go play something together on the Wii. They end up having more fun on the Wii game than on the iPad game.